1
Threats and Intentions
What emotions do you feel when you see a veiled women in public? Do you feel
pity, suspicion, maybe even fear? Should governments be able to make the veil illegal
because it evokes these emotions? The Muslim practice of veiling is an issue of religious
freedoms being discussed extensively across the globe. It is highly controversial, so much
that in recent years it has expanded beyond the personal realm and entered that of the
professional world. Some countries have made it illegal for women with certain
professions, such as school teachers, to wear a veil on the job. To gain further insight into
the issue, I will examine two texts about the topic of the veil and its place in society;
“Veiled Intentions” by Maysan Haydar, and “Veiled Threats” by Martha Nussbaum.
Although these authors both support the act of veiling there arguments have a lot of
differences that arise mainly in their approach of the topic. Haydar’s argument is focused
around her personal experiences, being that she is a Muslim woman. She believes that the
veil is a very realistic source of self-respect for American women whether they are
Muslim or not. On the other hand, Nussbaum writes in a much more aggressive tone,
arguing that to ban the veil would go against modern standards for religious liberty. In
this paper I will analyze the main claims, support, and evidence of each author’s
argument. I will also assess their strengths and weaknesses in delivering these arguments.
The first of these writers I will discuss grew up in Michigan. Her name is Maysan
Haydar and she is not your typical Muslim woman. She “[Loves] heavy metal”, has “a
few well-disguised piercings”, and even rocks purple hair (Haydar 402). After college
Haydar moved to New York to be a social worker and journalist. In 2003 she wrote a
short piece called, “Veiled Intentions: Don't Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering”,
which was an account of her personal experience as a Muslim woman in America and
how her choice to respect the tradition of the veil affected her everyday relationships.
This writing is a chapter in a book called, Body Outlaws: Rewriting the Rules of Beauty
and Body Image, which is comprised of stories of women who have chosen to ignore and
redefine the dominant standard for beauty in order to feel comfortable in their own
bodies. In her writing Haydar addresses a number of misconceptions that many people
have about the Veil. First off she claims, “many Americans see veiling as an oppressive
tool forced on Muslim women by the men in [their] culture”, and she “can’t imagine
centering [her] life on something as fleeting and meaningless” as being judged based on
her physical appearance (Haydar 404-405). She also talks about her experiences in grade
school, specifically her interactions with the opposite sex. Haydar states that she didn't
date much, but when a boy was attracted to her she “was flattered by the attention”
because she knew she “was being liked for who [she] was beyond [her] body”(405).
Moreover, her choice to veil fostered relationships that were more natural because of the
lack of “sexual pressure”(Haydar 405). Haydar believes in personal freedom and that no
one should “suffer for what they look like or what they wear”(407).
The second of the two authors I will be examining is a highly educated professor
of law and philosophy at The University of Chicago. Her name is Martha Nussbaum, and
among her many writings is a short piece called “Veiled Threats?” This piece was written
in a section of the New York Times called The Stone, which is “a forum for contemporary
philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless”. This writing, similar
to Haydar’s, is on the appropriateness of the veil in society, but from the perspective of
2
an outside party. Haydar creates an argument that puts the reader in her shoes and evokes
great pathos. On the other hand, Nussbaum bases hers solely on legality, logic, and
reasoning. She begins by citing current examples of where the veil is being discussed,
and comparing these discussions with the beliefs of two 17-century English philosophers.
Then she goes on to explain that there are five arguments commonly made in favor of
banning the veil, and describes why each is invalid. The first of these arguments are
about how the veil is a threat to national security and obstructs “transparency and
reciprocity… between citizens”(Nussbaum 3). The next two arguments she addresses
have to do with how the veil is used as a source for “the objectification of women”, and
that women only wear it “because they are coerced”(Nussbaum 3-4). The last argument
Nussbaum addresses as potential reasoning for a ban on the veil is that it “is per se
unhealthy”(4). Nussbaum states that this is the “silliest of the arguments”, which I agree
with. Nussbaum has a persuasive argument despite her totalitarian tone, and slight lack of
relevant supporting evidence.
Both of these authors make a valid argument as to why the veil should be an
accepted piece of religious attire across the globe, but neither is by any means flawless.
For instance, due to her high level of education Nussbaum has a certain level of
arrogance in her piece. She voices a very strong opinion on the topic, and doesn't always
bring strong evidence to back it up. Its almost as if she believes that her ethos will be all
the support she needs. Such as when she addresses the claims about national security, her
rebuttal to these arguments is that they are “applied inconsistently”, and she goes on to
explain that when the weather is cold many people cover their face to protect from the
elements, but that isn’t illegal. Or when football players and doctors cover their faces for
work they should be held to the same standard. The problem with her rebuttal is that
these cases of facial covering are unrelated to veiling, as they have no religious ties and
are purely for physical safety. Also these people shed their facial coverings as soon as it
is no longer necessary to wear them. After reading the comments made about her essay
on the New York Times website it is clear that her audience agrees, one woman even
called this claim an insult. Likewise, Haydar’s comment about how Americans see the
veil as oppressive also lacks relevant support. She automatically refutes this idea by
saying that, “covering hair and body is a choice for many women”, and continues to
explain that Americans who spend millions on “beauty products, plastic surgery, and selfhelp guides” are actually the ones oppressed by the current expectation of public beauty
(404). This speculation weakens her point. Just because she was given the choice to veil
doesn't mean all Muslim women are granted this liberty. Also many American women
buy products to improve their physical appearance because it makes them feel
empowered just as Haydar says the veil does for her. She assumes that American woman
only beautify themselves to appeal to the men in our society, but many of these women
could be homosexual and care less about what men think of their appearance.
That being said, not all of their claims were weakly supported. When Nussbaum
is addressing the argument of coercion, her rebuttal is a little extreme although she does
make a good point. Her immediate response to this argument is ignorance on the part of
the arguers, saying the people making these arguments “typically don't know much about
Islam”. After that she relates a husband forcing his wife to wear a veil to domestic
violence. Even though this is quite a left turn, she brings in statistics, which irrefutably
support her claim that there is no connection between the Muslim religion and increasing
3
domestic violence. Likewise, when Haydar makes the claim about her experiences in
grade school, she supports her point beautifully. She says her modest clothing avoided
her “a lot of damaging experiences”. This is something I can closely relate to being an
American teenager. I have seen many guys that enter relationships with girls based solely
on physical attraction. In truth these boys only want sexual intercourse and are willing to
break a heart to get it. Thus Haydar’s point is well founded and accurate.
Examining these two texts has opened my eyes to a global issue of religious
freedom that I hadn’t previously thought much about, but I am having trouble picking
which side I agree with. On one hand I disagree with the proposed bans overall because
they definitely would infringe on the rights of personal freedom, especially in America
where religious freedom is something every person is born with. But on the other hand I
agree with the bans in some situations, such as school teachers. I believe that in education
it is very important for students to create personal relationships with their teachers. If all
teachers wore veils it would be very challenging to create those relationships, especially
for young children that could easily be intimidated by a teacher in a head to toe black
robe. With that said if teachers want to veil as soon as they reenter the civilian world each
day that would have been perfectly okay. We cannot ignore that face-to-face interaction
is crucial to interpersonal communication in our society. The question at the end of the
day is not a simply answered one. Should the rights of the few be subject to change by
the views of the majority? I think we can come to some level of compromise that avoids
discrimination, and keeps the general population happy.
4
Work Cited
Haydar, Maysan. “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering.” Body
Outlaws: Rewriting the Rules of Beauty and Body Image. Ophira Edut, 2003.
(402-07). Print.
Nussbaum, Martha. “Veiled Threats?” The New York Times [New York City] 11 July
2010: n.pag. Print.